Talk:Federal State of Austria

Bundesversammlung

The Bundesversammlung was not a legislative body in the strict sense of that word; it didn't vote on any bills. More importantly, it wasn't even a parliamentary body in the broader sense in which e.g. the modern Federal Assembly is one; neither the cabinet nor the president were answerable to it. The current Federal Assembly can impeach presidents or try to have the electorate oust them via referendum; the Ständestaat Federal Assembly couldn't have done either. Its only roles were

• vetting candidates for the office of president (an executive office),
• swearing in the president,
• deliberating declarations of war.

The Ständestaat legislature was technically as well as effectively unicameral, and the article should reflect that. Damvile (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Merge with Austrofascism

I propose to merge Austrofascism into this article as both articles are quite short, the content is almost entirely overlapping and the premise of the "Austroafascism" article is problematic. St Judas the Lazarene (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. Austrofascism is about the ideology of the state while this article is about the state itself. The Austrofascism article can be rewritten to address any POV issues. buidhe 15:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Support: After looking closer, it is clear that these articles are content forks that are both mostly about the state. It's not obvious to me whether Austrofascism is the best term for the ideology of this state or whether a better title would be Ideology of the Federal State of Austria or something else, but Austrofascism could easily merge here without running afoul of WP:Article size. buidhe 05:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

"nonsense logic"

@211.197.54.36 can you please explain what you meant by "nonsense logic"? NorthTension (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Anthem glitch

This state's anthem Sei gesegnet ohne Ende shares a common melody with the German anthem, of which this article efficiently uses the US Navy band recording of the latter. That's fine, but when you press play, the subtitles show for "Unity and justice and freedom... etc" as if Germany. Can this be fixed or should a note be put about it? ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 15:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

"Austrofascism" debate

So I think it is clear by this point that this current edit war is probably not the best solution to what has been going on. So is there any way how this whole situation can be remedied? Basically, should this wikipedia page describe the Federal State of Austria as fascist or not. I think maybe a good compromise would be for the wikipedia page to simply state that the fascist label is disputed, and maybe add that as a note near the beginning of the page. I think this solution would satisfy both parties while remaining accurate about the Federal State of Austria's historiography. K1ausMouse (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC) @User:ErickTheMerrick

It needs serious improvement. In the article is states "Whether the Federal State could be considered genuinely fascist is debatable. Although it was authoritarian and used fascist-like symbols, it never achieved broad support among Austrians. Its most prominent policy was an embrace of Catholicism, and its economic and social policies bear only a passing resemblance to those of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany and more of a resemblance to Portugal under Salazar." which is hilarious bad. Apperently a fascist regime needs to have "broad support" to be fascist? And the last line "Its policies only have a passing[?] resemblance to those of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany [putting aside that those two regimes also had policies of "passing" semblance] and MORE[!!!] of a resemblance to [fascist] Portgual" Just wow! Remikipedia (talk) 07:40, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

History section

This section is a complete word salad. I can just about pick my way through it to see what the writer thought they meant, but even with my PhD in history hanging on the wall behind me it was a real struggle to extract information from.

I have assumed that it's a bad translation and marked it as such, but if so the source should be made clearer. It could just as easily be original text from someone whose confidence in English outstrips their actual ability. Whichever it is, it's currently unreadable. • a frantic turtle 🐢 21:06, 16 May 2026 (UTC)